Practical Group Signatures Without Random Oracles

Practical Group Signatures without Random Oracles Giuseppe Ateniese∗ Jan Camenisch† Susan Hohenberger† Breno de Medeiros‡ Abstract We provide a construction for a group signature scheme that is provably secure in a universally composable framework, within the standard model with trusted parameters. Our proposed scheme is fairly simple and its efficiency falls within small factors of the most efficient group signature schemes with provable security in any model (including random oracles). Security of our constructions require new cryptographic assumptions, namely the Strong LRSW, EDH, and Strong SXDH assumptions. Evidence for any assumption we introduce is provided by proving hardness in the generic group model. Our second contribution is the first definition of security for group signatures based on the simulata- bility of real protocol executions in an ideal setting that captures the basic properties of unforgeability, anonymity, unlinkability, and exculpability for group signature schemes. 1 Introduction Group signature schemes, introduced by Chaum and van Heyst [23], allow a member of a user group to sign anonymously on behalf of the group, where a user’s anonymity may be revoked by a designated group manager, in case of disputes. The motivation of this paper is twofold. Our first motivation is to build a practical group signature scheme provably secure under standard assumptions, in particular without resorting to the random oracle model. Prior to this work, there was no group signature scheme known achieving this (with the exception of the recent scheme by Boyen-Waters [16] which, however, fails to meet all required properties–we will later discuss their scheme in more detail). In this paper, we present a full group signature scheme provably secure under new number-theoretic assumptions. Now, one might say that we trade the “assumption” that the Fiat-Shamir heuristic works with proof of knowledge protocols for discrete logarithms (e.g., such as the Schnorr signature scheme) with other possibly false assumptions. However, while one will probably never be able to prove that the Fiat-Shamir heuristic is reasonable for some cases (on the contrary, many cases are known for which it is unreasonable [33]), our new assumptions are algebraic and hence naturally much easier to analyze. Indeed, as a first step towards their justification, we prove that they hold in the generic group model [40, 46]. We hasten to point out that one can of course prove assumptions hard in the generic group model that are not hard against an algebraically unrestricted adversary, and that the generic group model has some of the same faults as random oracles [27]. Rather, a proof in the generic model should be considered a sanity check for an complexity assumption. In the light of the quest for a group signature scheme provably secure in the standard model, one can view both schemes, the Boyen-Waters one and ours, as first steps in this direction. The Boyen-Waters scheme uses ∗Dept. of Computer Science; The Johns Hopkins University; 3400 N. Charles Street; Baltimore, MD 21218, USA. †IBM Research; Zurich Research Laboratory; Saumerstrasse¨ 4, CH-8803 Ruschlikon,¨ Switzerland. ‡Dept of Computer Science; Florida State University; 105-D James Love Bldg Tallahassee; FL 32306-4530 USA. 1 somewhat less complicated assumptions, but sacrifies some desirable properties while our scheme captures these properties but makes more involved assumptions. The second motivation of this paper is the definition of security in the reactive security or universally composablility model [8, 42, 22, 43]. Let us expand here. The security of early schemes was defined in terms of whether they satisfied a number of independent properties, and lacked a comprehensive view of adversarial behavior. Indeed, as initially the set of features considered was insufficient, some proposed schemes were subsequently broken. An important realization was the requirement that membership certificates be the equivalent of group manager signatures, in order to prevent against attacks by arbitrary group member coalitions [5]. Later, Bellare, Micciancio, and Warinschi [9] (BMW) introduced a security formalism based on adversarial games that combined the several requirements of previous works into fewer ones (namely, traceability and anonymity). However, the BMW formalization relies on the existence of a (trusted) key- issuing entity that generates all keys in the system and distributes them to the group manager and group members. As argued by Kiayias and Yung [36], BMW models a weaker primitive than the group signatures proposed by Chaum and van Heyst, since assuming a “tamper-proof” key setup conflicts with the goals of many practical schemes. The BMW model has been extensively adapted (via incorporating exculpability, changing the proof model to the random oracle setting and/or to dynamic groups) to allow for security proofs of recently proposed group signature schemes, e.g., works by Boneh et al. [13] and Camenisch and Lysyanskaya [19]. The first formal model to apply to the case of dynamic groups was introduced by Kiayias et al. [36, 35]. The formalization works in the random oracle model, not the standard model, but it captures closely the security requirements of practical group signatures, and it can be readily applied to formally prove the security of practical schemes. Indeed, [36] includes a security proof of a variant of the Ateniese et al. scheme [4]. More recently, Bellare, Shi, and Zhang [11] have proposed a standard-model formalism for dynamic groups, and constructed theoretical schemes based on black-box zero-knowledge primitives. Simultaneously with this evolution of understanding in group signatures was the development of the universally composable (UC)/reactive framework [8, 42, 22, 43]. The UC/reactive framework enables proofs of security of protocols that are valid under concurrent execution and in composition with other arbitrary protocols. It has been shown that this framework is more powerful than a property based definitional ap- proach as it captures all properties at the same time. Indeed, examples are known of schemes that satisfy a property based defintion (i.e., each property individually) but not a UC/reactive framework definition that requires the fullfilment of all the properties at the same time [22]. To date, it remained an open problem to introduce a UC/reactive security model for group signatures. We introduce this definition in Section 2. It was carefully constructed to incorporate the original vision of Chaum and van Heyst and its subsequent developments. Our definition implies many of the guarantees of prior property-based definitions (e.g., [9, 11, 36, 35]). Two properties that we do not require are: (1) membership revocation, and (2) anonymity even after exposure of a user’s secret key (forward anonymity), as in BMW [9]. Regarding point (2), we mean that we provide anonymity only to honest users, i.e., users of which the adversary does not know the secret key of which we believe is sufficient in practise. We emphasize that our model does not require any trusted key-issuing entity and group member secrets are known only to group members. Note that our results are not in contradiction with the work of Datta et al. [26] on the impossibility of realizing an ideal functionality for group signatures with perfect anonymity (i.e., the probability of guessing the identity of one of two signers is exactly 1/2) and perfect traceability (i.e., the probability of a dishonest group manager violating exculpability is exactly zero). Datta et al. admit that they only consider a strong form of group signature, and indeed, their formulation of group signatures has a single entity generating all 2 signing keys. They also require that the scheme remain secure even when all public parameters are chosen by a potentially malicious group manager, i.e., they consider UC security in the plain model. In contrast, our definition (and scheme) does not have a key issuing entity and will allow some global parameters to be given to the group manager—e.g., bilinear map parameters. This is sometimes referred to as a UC model with trusted parameters. We now summarize the contributions of our paper. 1.1 Our Contribution and Comparison with Previous Work Strong security model: We provide the first definition of security for group signature schemes as an ideal functionality, and provide a construction of a practical and provably secure scheme within the new framework. Static-membership versions of our group signature schemes are secure in the context of composition and concurrent executions. The dynamic-membership version of our group signature scheme is similarly secure, if the join protocol is restricted to sequential execution. Better Efficiency: Our construction is the first in the standard model to provide constant time and space efficiency with respect to the security parameter. Concurrently, and independently from us, Boyen and Waters [16] proposed a scheme provably secure the standard model (under a different definition of security). However, in their scheme the bit length of the signatures and the complexity of the signature and verification algorithms are O((log n) · k), where n is the number of group members and k is the security parameter. In our scheme, all of these complexities will be O((log n) + k), where the (log n) term is there to guarantee that there are enough unique secret keys for each user in the algebraic group. In practice, log n is smaller than k, so our scheme is an O(k) scheme (i.e., constant in the security parameter). CCA-anonymity: Our scheme achieves CCA anonymity, i.e., anonymity holds even when the adversary continually has access to an open oracle (which, when queried on a signature, returns the signer’s identity). In constrast, the Boyen-Waters scheme achieves only CPA anonymity, where the adversary is not allowed access to the oracle after receiving the challenge signature.

Load more